Translate

Google+ Badge

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Global mean land-ocean
temperature change from 1880–2012, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The
black line is the annual mean and the red line is the 5-year running mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. Source: NASA GISS.

The map shows the 10-year
average (2000–2009) global mean temperature anomaly relative to the
1951–1980 mean. The most extreme warming was in the Arctic. Source: NASA Earth Observatory[1]

Primary issues concerning the existence and cause of climate change include the reasons for the increase seen in the instrumental temperature record, whether the warming trend exceeds normal climatic variations, and whether human activities have contributed significantly to it.
Scientists have resolved many of these questions decisively in favour
of the view that the current warming trend exists and is ongoing, that
human activity is the primary cause, and that it is without precedent in
at least 2000 years.[11]
Additional disputes have concerned estimates of how responsive the
climate system might be to any given level of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), projections of continued warming in response to the existing buildup of greenhouse gases plus future emissions, and what the consequences of global warming will be.

Global warming remains an issue of widespread political debate,
sometimes split along party political lines, especially in the United
States.[12]
Many of the largely settled scientific issues, such as the human
responsibility for global warming, remain the subject of politically or
economically motivated attempts to downplay, dismiss or deny them – an
ideological phenomenon categorised by academics and scientists as climate change denial. The sources of funding for those involved with climate science – both supporting and opposing mainstream scientific positions – have been questioned by both sides. There are debates about the best policy responses to the science, their cost-effectiveness and their urgency. Climate scientists, especially in the US, have reported official and oil-industry pressure to censor or suppress their work
and hide scientific data, with directives not to discuss the subject in
public communications. Legal cases regarding global warming, its
effects, and measures to reduce it, have reached American courts. The fossil fuels lobby and free marketthink tanks
have often been accused of overtly or covertly supporting efforts to
undermine or discredit the scientific consensus on global warming.

History

Public opinion

In the United States, the mass media devoted little coverage to global warming until the drought of 1988, and James E. Hansen's testimony to the Senate, which explicitly attributed "the abnormally hot weather plaguing our nation" to global warming.[13]
The British press also changed its coverage at the end of 1988, following a speech by Margaret Thatcher to the Royal Society advocating action against human-induced climate change.[14] According to Anabela Carvalho, an academic analyst, Thatcher's "appropriation" of the risks of climate change to promote nuclear power, in the context of the dismantling of the coal industry following the 1984–1985 miners' strike
was one reason for the change in public discourse. At the same time
environmental organizations and the political opposition were demanding
"solutions that contrasted with the government's".[15] In May 2013 Prince Charles
took a strong stance criticising both climate change deniers and
corporate lobbyists by likening the Earth to a dying patient. "A
scientific hypothesis is tested to absolute destruction, but medicine
can't wait. If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can't wait for
[endless] tests. He has to act on what is there."[16]
Many European countries took action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before 1990. West Germany started to take action after the Green Party took seats in Parliament in the 1980s. All countries of the European Union ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Substantial activity by NGOs took place as well.[17]
The United States Energy Information Administration reports that, in
the United States, "The 2012 downturn means that emissions are at their
lowest level since 1994 and over 12 percent below the recent 2007 peak".[18]

In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate gained wide
acceptance more rapidly than in the United States and other countries.[19][20]
A 2009 survey found that Europeans rated climate change as the second
most serious problem facing the world, between "poverty, the lack of
food and drinking water" and "a major global economic downturn". 87% of
Europeans considered climate change to be a very serious or serious
problem, while ten per cent did not consider it a serious problem.[21]

In 2007 the BBC announced the cancellation of a planned television special Planet Relief, which would have highlighted the global warming issue and included a mass electrical switch-off.[22] The editor of BBC's Newsnight
current affairs show said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save
the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it
must be stopped."[23] Author Mark Lynas
said "The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small
but vociferous group of extreme right-wing climate 'sceptics' lobbying
against taking action, so the BBC is behaving like a coward and refusing
to take a more consistent stance."[24]

The authors of the 2010 book Merchants of Doubt
accuse climate change "skeptics" of trying to sow seeds of doubt in
public opinion in order to halt any meaningful social or political
progress to reduce the impact of human carbon emissions. The fact that
only half of the American population believe that global warming is
caused by human activity could be seen as a victory for these so-called
skeptics.[10]
One of the authors' main arguments is that most prominent scientists
who have been voicing opposition to the near-universal consensus are
being funded by industries, such as automotive and oil, that stand to
lose money by government actions to regulate greenhouse gases.

A compendium of poll results on public perceptions about global warming is below.[25][26][27]

In 2007 a report on public perceptions in the UK by Ipsos MORI[30] reported that

There is widespread recognition that the climate, irrespective of the cause, is changing—88% believe this to be true.

However, the public is out of step with the scientific community,
with 41% believing that climate change is being caused by both human
activity and natural processes. 46% believe human activity is the main
cause.

Only a small minority reject anthropogenic climate change, while
almost half (44%) are very concerned. However, there remains a large
proportion who are yet to be fully persuaded and hold doubts about the
extent of the threat.

There is still a strong appetite among the public for more
information, and 63% say they need this to come to a firm view on the
issue and what it means for them.

The public continue to externalize climate change to other people,
places and times. It is increasingly perceived as a major global issue
with far-reaching consequences for future generations—45% say it is the
most serious threat facing the World today and 53% believe it will
impact significantly on future generations. However, the issue features
less prominently nationally and locally, indeed only 9% believe climate
change will have a significant impact upon them personally.

An example of the poor understanding is public confusion between global warming and ozone depletion or other environmental problems.[32][33]

A 15-nation poll conducted in 2006 by Pew Global found that there "is a substantial gap in concern over global warming—roughly two-thirds of Japanese
(66%) and Indians (65%) say they personally worry a great deal about
global warming. Roughly half of the populations of Spain (51%) and
France (46%) also express great concern over global warming, based on
those who have heard about the issue. But there is no evidence of alarm
over global warming in either the United States or China—the two largest
producers of greenhouse gases. Just 19% of Americans and 20% of the
Chinese who have heard of the issue say they worry a lot about global
warming—the lowest percentages in the 15 countries surveyed. Moreover,
nearly half of Americans (47%) and somewhat fewer Chinese (37%) express
little or no concern about the problem".[34]

A 47-nation poll by Pew Global Attitudes conducted in 2007 found that
"Substantial majorities 25 of 37 countries say global warming is a
'very serious' problem".[35]

There are differences between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public. A 2009 poll in the US by Pew Research Center
found that "[w]hile 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer
because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the
public agrees".[29] A 2010 poll in the UK for the BBC showed "Climate scepticism on the rise".[36]Robert Watson
found this "very disappointing" and said that "We need the public to
understand that climate change is serious so they will change their
habits and help us move towards a low carbon economy".

A 2012 Canadian poll found that 32% of Canadians said they believe
climate change is happening because of human activity, while 54% said
they believe it’s because of human activity and partially due to natural
climate variation. 9% believe climate change is occurring due to
natural climate variation, and only 2% said they don't believe climate
change is occurring at all.[37]

Related controversies

Many of the critics of the consensus view on global warming have
disagreed, in whole or part, with the scientific consensus regarding
other issues, particularly those relating to environmental risks, such
as ozone depletion, DDT, and passive smoking.[38][39]Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science,
has argued that the appearance of overlapping groups of skeptical
scientists, commentators and think tanks in seemingly unrelated
controversies results from an organized attempt to replace scientific
analysis with political ideology. Mooney says that the promotion of
doubt regarding issues that are politically, but not scientifically,
controversial became increasingly prevalent under the Bush
Administration, which, he says, regularly distorted and/or suppressed
scientific research to further its own political aims. This is also the
subject of a 2004 book by environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. entitled Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and Corporate Pals are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy (ISBN 978-0060746872). Another book on this topic is The Assault on Reason by former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore. Earlier instances of this trend are also covered in the book The Heat Is On by Ross Gelbspan.

Some critics of the scientific consensus on global warming have
argued that these issues should not be linked and that reference to them
constitutes an unjustified ad hominem attack.[40] Political scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., responding to Mooney, has argued that science is inevitably intertwined with politics.[41]

Mainstream scientific position, and challenges to it

Just over 97% of climate researchers say humans are causing most global warming.[42][43][44]

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that
human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate
change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[45]

[T]here is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple
lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these
changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains
to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and
hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face
of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative
explanations. * * * Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so
thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent
observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being
found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories
are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions
that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very
likely due to human activities.[49]

Among opponents of the mainstream scientific assessment,
some say that while there is agreement that humans do have an effect on
climate, there is no universal agreement about the quantitative
magnitude of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) relative to natural forcings and its harm to benefit ratio.[50]
Other opponents assert that some kind of ill-defined "consensus
argument" is being used, and then dismiss this by arguing that science
is based on facts rather than consensus.[51]
Some highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the
context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science
is based on facts and not on opinion polls or consensus.[52][53]Dennis T. Avery, a food policy analyst at the Hudson Institute wrote an article entitled "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[54] published in 2007 by The Heartland Institute.
After the publishing of this article, numerous scientists who had been
included in the list demanded their names be removed after the list was
immediately called into question for misunderstanding and distorting the
conclusions of many of the named studies and/or citing outdated, flawed
studies that had long been abandoned and deemed inaccurate.[55][56][57]
The Heartland Institute refused requests by scientists to have their
names removed, stating that the scientists "have no right—legally or
ethically—to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography
composed by researchers with whom they disagree"[58] despite the aforementioned falsification and refutation of much of the list.[59]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
analysed "1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation
data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively
publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate
expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of
ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers".[60][61]Judith Curry has said "This is a completely unconvincing analysis", whereas Naomi Oreskes
said that the paper shows that "the vast majority of working [climate]
research scientists are in agreement [on climate change]... Those who
don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding
elitist—mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very
productive researchers".[61][62] Jim Prall, one of the coauthors of the study, acknowledged "it would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category".[61]

A 2013 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters
analyzed around 12,000 papers published in the peer-reviewed scientiﬁc
literature between 1991 and 2011, identified by searching the ISI Web of Sciencecitation index
engine for the text strings “global climate change” or “global
warming”. About ⅓ of these papers expressed an opinion about global
warming in their abstract, and of these, 97% endorsed the position that
humans are causing global warming.[44]

Authority of the IPCC

The "standard" view of climate change has come to be defined by the reports of the IPCC, which is supported by many other science academies and scientific organizations.
In 2001, sixteen of the world's national science academies made a joint
statement on climate change, and gave their support for the IPCC[45]
Opponents have generally attacked either the IPCC's processes, people[63]
or the Synthesis and Executive summaries; the scientific reports
attract less attention. Some of the controversy and criticism has
originated from experts invited by the IPCC to submit reports or serve
on its panels. For example, Richard Lindzen has publicly dissented from IPCC positions.[64]

Christopher Landsea,
a hurricane researcher, said of "the part of the IPCC to which my
expertise is relevant" that "I personally cannot in good faith continue
to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by
pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound",[65] because of comments made at a press conference by Kevin Trenberth of which Landsea disapproved. Trenberth said that "Landsea's comments were not correct";[66]
the IPCC replied that "individual scientists can do what they wish in
their own rights, as long as they are not saying anything on behalf of
the IPCC" and offered to include Landsea in the review phase of the AR4.[67]Roger Pielke, Jr.
commented that "Both Landsea and Trenberth can and should feel
vindicated... the IPCC accurately reported the state of scientific
understandings of tropical cyclones and climate change in its recent
summary for policy makers".[66]

In 2005, the House of Lords
Economics Committee wrote that "We have some concerns about the
objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios
and summary documentation apparently influenced by political
considerations". It doubted the high emission scenarios and said that
the IPCC had "played-down" what the committee called "some positive
aspects of global warming".[68]
The main statements of the House of Lords Economics Committee were
rejected in the response made by the United Kingdom government[69] and by the Stern Review.

Speaking to the difficulty of establishing scientific consensus on the precise extent of human action on climate change, John Christy, a contributing author, wrote:

Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little
text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. We have no
control over editing decisions. Even less influence is granted the 2,000
or so reviewers. Thus, to say that 800 contributing authors or 2,000
reviewers reached consensus on anything describes a situation that is
not reality.[70]

He added:

I’ve written a number of papers about the precision of our climate
records. The impact of Kyoto-like proposals will be too small for we
scientists to measure due to the natural variations of climate and the
lack of precision in our observing system. In other words we will not be
able to tell lawmakers with high confidence that specific regulations
achieve anything in terms of climate in this country or the world.
Additionally, the climate system is immensely complicated and really
cannot be tweaked for a predictable outcome.[70]

On 10 December 2008, a report was released by the U.S. SenateCommittee on Environment and Public Works Minority members, under the leadership of the Senate's most vocal global warming skeptic Jim Inhofe.
The timing of the report coincided with the UN global warming
conference in Poznań, Poland. It says it summarizes scientific dissent
from the IPCC.[71]
Many of its statements about the numbers of individuals listed in the
report, whether they are actually scientists, and whether they support
the positions attributed to them, have been disputed.[72][73][74]

While some critics have argued that the IPCC overstates likely global
warming, others have made the opposite criticism. David Biello, writing
in the Scientific American,
argues that, because of the need to secure consensus among governmental
representatives, the IPCC reports give conservative estimates of the
likely extent and effects of global warming.[75]Science
editor Brooks Hanson states in a 2010 editorial: "The IPCC reports have
underestimated the pace of climate change while overestimating
societies' abilities to curb greenhouse gas emissions".[76] Climate scientist James E. Hansen
argues that the IPCC's conservativeness seriously underestimates the
risk of sea-level rise on the order of meters—enough to inundate many
low-lying areas, such as the southern third of Florida.[77]
Roger A. Pielke Sr. has also stated that "Humans are significantly
altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the
radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too
conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate
forcings as they alter regional and global climate".[78]

Henderson-Sellers
has collected comments from IPCC authors in a 2007 workshop revealing a
number of concerns. She concluded, "Climate change research entered a
new and different regime with the publication of the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report. There is no longer any question about "whether" human
activities are changing the climate; instead research must tackle the
urgent questions of: "how fast?"; "with what impacts?'; and "what
responses are needed?""[79]

Studies of the Vostok ice core show that at the "beginning of the deglaciations, the CO
2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than
~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it
clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations".[81] Recent warming is followed by carbon dioxide levels with only a 5 months delay.[82] The time lag has been used to argue that the current rise in CO
2 is a result of warming and not a cause. While it
is generally agreed that variations before the industrial age are mostly
timed by astronomical forcing,[83] a main part of current warming is found to be timed by anthropogenic releases of CO
2, having a much closer time relation not observed in the past (thus returning the argument to the importance of human CO
2 emissions). Analysis of carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO
2 shows that the recent observed CO
2 increase cannot have come from the oceans, volcanoes, or
the biosphere, and thus is not a response to rising temperatures as
would be required if the same processes creating past lags were active
now.[84]

Carbon dioxide accounts for about 390 parts per million by volume
(ppm) of the Earth's atmosphere, increasing from 284 ppm in the 1830s to
387 ppm in 2009.[85][86] Carbon dioxide contributes between 9 and 26% of the natural greenhouse effect.[87]

In the Ordovician period of the Paleozoic era (about 450 million years ago), the Earth had an atmospheric CO
2 concentration estimated at 4400ppm (or 0.44% of the
atmosphere), while also having evidence of some glaciation. Modeling
work has shown that it is possible for local areas at elevations greater
than 300–500 meters to contain year-round snow cover even with high
atmospheric CO
2 concentrations.[88] A 2006 study suggests that the elevated CO
2 levels and the glaciation are not synchronous, but rather that weathering associated with the uplift and erosion of the Appalachian Mountains greatly reduced atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and permitted the observed glaciation.[89]

As noted above, climate models
are only able to simulate the temperature record of the past century
when GHG forcing is included, being consistent with the findings of the
IPCC which has stated that: "Greenhouse gas forcing, largely the result
of human activities, has very likely caused most of the observed global
warming over the last 50 years"[90]

The "standard" set of scenarios for future atmospheric greenhouse gases are the IPCC SRES
scenarios. The purpose of the range of scenarios is not to predict what
exact course the future of emissions will take, but what it may take
under a range of possible population, economic and societal trends.[91]
Climate models can be run using any of the scenarios as inputs to
illustrate the different outcomes for climate change. No one scenario is
officially preferred, but in practice the "A1b" scenario roughly
corresponding to 1%/year growth in atmospheric CO
2 is often used for modelling studies.

There is debate about the various scenarios for fossil fuel consumption. Global warming skeptic Fred Singer stated that "some good experts believe" that atmospheric CO
2 concentration will not double since economies are becoming less reliant on carbon.[92]

However, the Stern report,[93] like many other reports, notes the past correlation between CO
2 emissions and economic growth and then extrapolates using a "business as usual" scenario to predict GDP growth and hence CO
2 levels, concluding that:

Increasing scarcity of fossil fuels alone will not stop emissions
growth in time. The stocks of hydrocarbons that are profitable to
extract are more than enough to take the world to levels of CO
2 well beyond 750 ppm with very dangerous consequences for climate change impacts.

According to a 2006 paper from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
"the earth would warm by 8 degrees Celsius (14.4 degrees Fahrenheit) if
humans use the entire planet's available fossil fuels by the year
2300".[94]

Solar variation

Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
express varied opinions concerning the cause of global warming. Some
say only that it has not yet been ascertained whether humans are the
primary cause of global warming; others attribute global warming to
natural variation; ocean currents; increased solar activity or cosmic rays.
The consensus position is that solar radiation may have increased by
0.12 W/m² since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m² for the net anthropogenic
forcing.[95]
The TAR said, "The combined change in radiative forcing of the two
major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is
estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly the past four,
decades".[96]
The AR4 makes no direct assertions on the recent role of solar forcing,
but the previous statement is consistent with the AR4's figure 4.[citation needed]

A few studies say that the present level of solar activity is
historically high as determined by sunspot activity and other factors.
Solar activity could affect climate either by variation in the Sun's
output or, more speculatively, by an indirect effect on the amount of cloud formation.
Solanki and co-workers suggest that solar activity for the last 60 to
70 years may be at its highest level in 8,000 years; Muscheler et al. disagree, suggesting that other comparably high levels of activity have occurred several times in the last few thousand years.[97] Muscheler et al.
concluded that "solar activity reconstructions tell us that only a
minor fraction of the recent global warming can be explained by the
variable Sun".[98] Solanki et al.
concluded "that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant
cause of the strong warming during the past three decades", and that
"at the most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar
origin".[99]

Another point of controversy is the correlation of temperature with solar variation.[100]
Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich reject the statement that the
warming observed in the global mean surface temperature record since
about 1850 is the result of solar variations.[101]
Lockwood and Fröhlich conclude that "the observed rapid rise in global
mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar
variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how
much the solar variation is amplified."

Aerosols forcing

The "pause" in warming from the 1940s to 1960s is generally attributed to cooling effect of sulphate aerosols.[102][103]
More recently, this forcing has (relatively) declined, which may have
enhanced warming, though the effect is regionally varying. See global dimming.
Another example of this is in Ruckstuhl's paper who found a 60%
reduction in aerosol concentrations over Europe causing solar
brightening:[104]

[...] the direct aerosol effect had an approximately five times
larger impact on climate forcing than the indirect aerosol and other
cloud effects. The overall aerosol and cloud induced surface climate
forcing is ~ 1 W m−2 decade−1 and has most probably strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe.

Weather stations that are used to compute global temperature records
are not evenly distributed over the planet. There were a small number of
weather stations in the 1850s, and the number didn't reach the current
3000+ until the 1951 to 1990 period [105]

Skeptics contend that stations located in more populated areas could
show warming due to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a
global temperature rise.[106] The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) acknowledges that the urban heat island is an important local effect, but cites analyses of historical data indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05 °C (0.09 °F) degrees through 1990.[107] More recently, Peterson (2003) found no difference between the warming observed in urban and rural areas.[108]

Parker (2006) found that there was no difference in warming between
calm and windy nights. Since the urban heat island effect is strongest
for calm nights and is weak or absent on windy nights, this was taken as
evidence that global temperature trends are not significantly
contaminated by urban effects.[109] Pielke and Matsui published a paper disagreeing with Parker's conclusions.[110]

More recently, Roger A. Pielke and Stephen McIntyre
have criticized the US instrumental temperature record and adjustments
to it, and Pielke and others have criticized the poor quality siting of a
number of weather stations in the United States.[111][112] In response, Anthony Watts began a volunteer effort to photographically document the siting quality of these stations.[113] The Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres subsequently published a study by Menne et al. which examined the record of stations picked out by Watts' Surfacestations.org
and found that, if anything, the poorly sited stations showed a slight
cool bias rather than the warm bias which Watts had anticipated.[114][115]

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature
group carried out an independent assessment of land temperature
records, which examined issues raised by skeptics, such as the urban
heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection
bias. The preliminary results, made public in October 2011, found that
these factors had not biased the results obtained by NOAA, the Hadley Centre together with the Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT)
and NASA's GISS in earlier studies. The group also confirmed that over
the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911 °C, and their results
closely matched those obtained from these earlier studies. The four
papers they had produced had been submitted for peer review.[116][117][118][119]

Instrumental record of tropospheric temperature

General circulation models and basic physical considerations predict that in the tropics the temperature of the troposphere should increase more rapidly than the temperature of the surface. A 2006 report to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program
noted that models and observations agreed on this amplification for
monthly and interannual time scales but not for decadal time scales in
most observed data sets. Improved measurement and analysis techniques
have reconciled this discrepancy: corrected buoy and satellite surface temperatures are slightly cooler and corrected satellite and radiosonde measurements of the tropical troposphere are slightly warmer.[120]Satellite temperature measurements
show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar
to those of the surface temperature", leading the IPCC to conclude that
this discrepancy is reconciled.[121]

Antarctica cooling

Antarctic Skin (the roughly top millimeter of land, sea, snow, or ice)
Temperature Trends between 1981 and 2007, based on thermal infrared
observations made by a series of NOAA satellite sensors; note that they
do not necessarily reflect air temperature trends.

There has been a public dispute regarding the apparent contradiction in the observed behavior of Antarctica,
as opposed to the global rise in temperatures measured elsewhere in the
world. This became part of the public debate in the global warming
controversy, particularly between advocacy groups of both sides in the
public arena, as well as the popular media.[122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129]

In contrast to the popular press, there is no evidence of a
corresponding controversy in the scientific community. Observations
unambiguously show the Antarctic Peninsula
to be warming. The trends elsewhere show both warming and cooling but
are smaller and dependent on season and the timespan over which the
trend is computed.[130]
A study released in 2009, combined historical weather station data with
satellite measurements to deduce past temperatures over large regions
of the continent, and these temperatures indicate an overall warming
trend. One of the paper's authors stated "We now see warming is
taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what
models predict as a response to greenhouse gases."[131] According to 2011 paper by Ding, et al., "The
Pacific sector of Antarctica, including both the Antarctic Peninsula
and continental West Antarctica, has experienced substantial warming in
the past 30 years."[132][133]

This controversy began with the misinterpretation of the results of a 2002 paper by Doran et al.,[134][135] which found that "Although
previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming, our spatial
analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on
the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during
summer and autumn."[134] Later the controversy was popularized by Michael Crichton's 2004 fiction novel State of Fear,[136] who advocated skepticism in global warming.[137][138] This novel has a docudrama plot based upon the idea that there is a deliberately alarmist conspiracy behind global warming activism. One of the characters argues that "data show that one relatively small area called the Antarctic Peninsula is melting and calving huge icebergs... but the continent as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker." As a basis for this plot twist, Crichton cited the peer reviewed scientific article by Doran, et al.[134]Peter Doran,
the lead author of the paper cited by Crichton, stated that "... our
results have been misused as 'evidence' against global warming by
Crichton in his novel 'State of Fear'... Our study did find that 58
percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period,
the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since
our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of
significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that
continent."[139]

Climate sensitivity

As defined by the IPCC, climate sensitivity is the "equilibrium temperature rise that would occur for a doubling of CO
2 concentration above pre-industrial levels."[140]
In its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, IPCC said that climate
sensitivity is "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best
estimate of about 3 °C".[141]

In January 2013 widespread publicity was given to work led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo,
Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in
Yokohama, and Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, which
reportedly found lower climate sensitivities than IPCC estimates and the
suggestion that there is a 90% probability that doubling CO
2 emissions will increase temperatures by lower values
than those estimated by the climate models used by the IPCC was featured
in news outlets including The Economist.[147][148] This premature announcement came from a preliminary news release about a study which had not yet been peer reviewed.[149]
The Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo
(CICERO) issued a statement that they were involved with the relevant
research project, and the news story was based on a report submitted to
the research council which included both published and unpublished
material. The highly publicised figures came from work still undergoing
peer review, and CICERO would wait until they had been published in a
journal before disseminating the results.[150]

Infrared iris hypothesis

In 2001, Richard Lindzen
proposed a system of compensating meteorological processes involving
clouds that tend to stabilize climate change; he tagged this the "Iris hypothesis, or "Infrared Iris."[151] This work has been discussed in a number of papers[152]

Roy Spenceret al.
suggested that "a net reduction in radiative input into the
ocean-atmosphere system" in tropical intraseasonal oscillations "may
potentially support" the idea of an "Iris" effect, although they point
out that their work is concerned with much shorter time scales.[153]
Other analyses have found that the iris effect is a positive feedback rather than the negative feedback proposed by Lindzen.[154]

Internal radiative forcing

Roy Spencer hypothesized in 2008 that there is an "internal radiative forcing" affecting climate variability,[155][156]

[...] mixing up of cause and effect when observing natural climate
variability can lead to the mistaken conclusion that the climate system
is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than it really is. [...]
it provides a quantitative mechanism for the (minority) view that global
warming is mostly a manifestation of natural internal climate
variability.

[...] low frequency, internal radiative forcing amounting to little more than 1 W/m2,
assumed to be proportional to a weighted average of the southern
oscillation and Pacific decadal oscillation indices since 1900, produces
ocean temperature behavior similar to that observed: warming from 1900
to 1940, then slight cooling through the 1970s, then resumed warming up
to the present, as well as 70% of the observed centennial temperature
trend.

Conventional projections of future temperature rises depend on estimates of future anthropogenic GHG emissions (see SRES), those positive and negative climate change feedbacks that have so far been incorporated into the models, and the climate sensitivity. Models referenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) predict that global temperatures are likely to increase by 1.1
to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100. Others have proposed
that temperature increases may be higher than IPCC estimates. One theory
is that the climate may reach a "tipping point"
where positive feedback effects lead to runaway global warming; such
feedbacks include decreased reflection of solar radiation as sea ice
melts, exposing darker seawater, and the potential release of large
volumes of methane from thawing permafrost.[159]
In 1959 Dr. Bert Bolin, in a speech to the National Academy of
Sciences, predicted that by the year 2000 there would be a 25% increase
in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compared to the levels in 1859. The
actual increase by 2000 was about 29%.[160]

David Orrell or Henk Tennekes[161]
say that climate change cannot be accurately predicted. Orrell says
that the range of future increase in temperature suggested by the IPCC
rather represents a social consensus in the climate community, but adds
that "we are having a dangerous effect on the climate".[162]

Global mean land-ocean temperature change from 1970–2011, relative to
the 1951–1980 mean. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat
since 2000.[163]

A 2007 study by David Douglass and coworkers concluded that the 22 most commonly used global climate models used by the IPCC were unable to accurately predict accelerated warming in the troposphere
although they did match actual surface warming, concluding that
"projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed
with much caution". This result went against a similar study of 19
models which found that discrepancies between model predictions and
actual temperature were likely due to measurement errors.[164]

In a NASA
report published in January 2013, Hansen and Sato noted that "the
5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we
interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the
growth rate of the net climate forcing."[147][163] According to several papers published in 2012,[who?]
previous projections by the main climate simulation models have failed
to predict this lack of additional warming that took place between 2000
and 2010.[citation needed] Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading,
the "surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the
range of projections derived from 20 climate models. If they remain
flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years".[147][165]
Using the long-term temperature trends for the earth scientists and
statisticians conclude that it continues to warm through time.[166]

Forecasts confidence

The IPCC states it has increased confidence in forecasts coming from General Circulation Models or GCMs. Chapter 8 of AR4 reads:

There is considerable confidence that climate models provide
credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly
at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the
foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their
ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past
climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some
climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g.,
precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have
consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant
climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.[167]

Certain scientists, skeptics and otherwise, believe this confidence
in the models’ ability to predict future climate is not earned.[168][169][170][171]

Arctic sea ice decline

Arctic Sea ice as of 2007 compared to 2005 and also compared to 1979–2000 average

Northern Hemisphere ice trends

Following the (then) record low of the arctic sea ice extend in 2007,[172]Mark Serreze,
the director of US National Snow and Ice Data Center, stated "If you
asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice
then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030
is a reasonable estimate".[173] In 2012, during another record low, Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted a possible final collapse of Arctic sea ice in summer months around 2016.[174]
Antarctic and Arctic sea ice extent are available on a daily basis from the National Snow & Ice Data Center.[175]

Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Science Committee,
told his fellow Republican Joe Barton it was a "misguided and
illegitimate investigation" seemingly intended to "intimidate scientists
rather than to learn from them, and to substitute congressional
political review for scientific review." The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Ralph J. Cicerone wrote to Barton proposing that the NAS should appoint an independent panel to investigate. Barton dismissed this offer.[180][181]

On 15 July, Mann wrote giving his detailed response to Barton and
Whitfield. He emphasised that the full data and necessary methods
information was already publicly available in full accordance with National Science Foundation
(NSF) requirements, so that other scientists had been able to reproduce
their work. NSF policy was that computer codes are considered the
intellectual property of researchers and are not subject to disclosure,
but notwithstanding these property rights, the program used to generate
the original MBH98 temperature reconstructions had been made available
at the Mann et al. public FTP site. [182]

Many scientists protested about Barton's demands.[180][183]Alan I. Leshner wrote to him on behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
stating that the letters gave "the impression of a search for some
basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings,
rather than a search for understanding," He stated that Mann, Bradley
and Hughes had given out their full data and descriptions of methods.[184][185] A Washington Post
editorial on 23 July which described the investigation as harassment
quoted Bradley as saying it was "intrusive, far-reaching and
intimidating", and Alan I. Leshner of the AAAS describing it as
unprecedented in the 22 years he had been a government scientist; he
thought it could "have a chilling effect on the willingness of people to
work in areas that are politically relevant."[179]
Congressman Boehlert said the investigation was as "at best foolhardy"
with the tone of the letters showing the committee's inexperience in
relation to science.[184]

Barton was given support by global warming sceptic Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute,
who said "We've always wanted to get the science on trial ... we would
like to figure out a way to get this into a court of law", and "this
could work".[184] In his Junk Science column on Fox News, Steven Milloy said Barton's inquiry was reasonable.[186] In September 2005 David Legates
alleged in a newspaper op-ed that the issue showed climate scientists
not abiding by data access requirements and suggested that legislators
might ultimately take action to enforce them.[187]

Political questions

In the U.S. global warming is often a partisan political issue. Republicans tend to oppose action against a threat that they regard as unproven, while Democrats
tend to support actions that they believe will reduce global warming
and its effects through the control of greenhouse gas emissions.[188] A bipartisan measure was introduced in the US House of Representatives as recently as 2007.[189]

The SPM
was approved line by line by governments[...] The argument here is that
the scientists determine what can be said, but the governments
determine how it can best be said. Negotiations occur over wording to
ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to
understanding and policy. The IPCC process is dependent on the good will
of the participants in producing a balanced assessment. However, in
Shanghai, it appeared that there were attempts to blunt, and perhaps
obfuscate, the messages in the report, most notably by Saudi Arabia.
This led to very protracted debates over wording on even bland and what
should be uncontroversial text... The most contentious paragraph in the
IPCC (2001) SPM was the concluding one on attribution. After much
debate, the following was carefully crafted: "In the light of new
evidence, and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of
the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due
to the increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations".[190]

As more evidence has become available over the existence of global
warming debate has moved to further controversial issues, including:

The social and environmental impacts

The appropriate response to climate change

Whether decisions require less uncertainty

The single largest issue is the importance of a few degrees rise in temperature:

Most people say, "A few degrees? So what? If I change my thermostat a
few degrees, I'll live fine." ... [The] point is that one or two
degrees is about the experience that we have had in the last 10,000
years, the era of human civilization. There haven't been—globally
averaged, we're talking—fluctuations of more than a degree or so. So
we're actually getting into uncharted territory from the point of view
of the relatively benign climate of the last 10,000 years, if we warm up
more than a degree or two. (Stephen H. Schneider[191])

The other point that leads to major controversy—because it could have
significant economic impacts—is whether action (usually, restrictions
on the use of fossil fuels
to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions) should be taken now, or in the near
future; and whether those restrictions would have any meaningful effect
on global temperature.[citation needed]

Because of the economic ramifications of such restrictions, there are those, including the Cato Institute, a libertarianthink tank, who argue that the negative economic effects of emission controls outweigh the environmental benefits.[192]
They state that even if global warming is caused solely by the burning
of fossil fuels, restricting their use would have more damaging effects
on the world economy than the increases in global temperature.[193]

The linkage between coal, electricity, and economic growth in the
United States is as clear as it can be. And it is required for the way
we live, the way we work, for our economic success, and for our future.
Coal-fired electricity generation. It is necessary.(Fred Palmer,
President of Western Fuels Association[193])

Conversely, others argue that early action to reduce emissions would
help avoid much greater economic costs later, and would reduce the risk
of catastrophic, irreversible change.[194] In his December 2006 book, Hell and High Water, energy technology expert Joseph J. Romm

discusses the urgency to act and the sad fact that America is refusing to do so...

On a local or regional level, some specific effects of global warming might be considered beneficial.[195]

Ultimately, however, a strictly economic argument for or against
action on climate change is limited at best, failing to take into
consideration other potential impacts of any change.

Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Walter Russell Mead argues that the 2009 Copenhagen Summit
failed because environmentalists have changed from "Bambi to Godzilla".
According to Mead, environmentalist used to represent the skeptical few
who made valid arguments against big government programs which tried to
impose simple but massive solutions on complex situations.
Environmentalists' more recent advocacy for big economic and social
intervention against global warming, according to Mead, has made them,
"the voice of the establishment, of the tenured, of the technocrats" and
thus has lost them the support of a public which is increasingly
skeptical of global warming.[196]

Various campaigns such as the Stop Global Warming (Organization) and many Greenpeace
projects have been started in an effort to push the world's leaders
towards changing laws and policies that would effectively reduce the
world's carbon emissions and use of non-renewable energy resources.

Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto protocol is the most prominent international agreement on
climate change, and is also highly controversial. Some argue that it
goes too far[197] or not nearly far enough[198]
in restricting emissions of greenhouse gases. Another area of
controversy is the fact that China and India, the world's two most
populous countries, both ratified the protocol but are not required to
reduce or even limit the growth of carbon emissions under the present
agreement even though when listed by greenhouse gas emissions per capita, they have rankings of 121st largest per capita emitter at 3.9 Tonnes of CO
2e and 162nd largest per capita emitter at 1.8 Tonnes of CO
2e respectively, compared with for example the US at position of the 14th largest per capita CO
2e emitter at 22.9 Tonnes of CO
2e. Nevertheless, China is the world's second largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, and India 4th (see: countries by greenhouse emissions). Various predictions see China overtaking the US in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,[199][200][201] and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.[202][203]

Additionally, high costs of decreasing emissions may cause
significant production to move to countries that are not covered under
the treaty, such as India and China, says Fred Singer.[204] As these countries are less energy efficient, this scenario is said to cause additional carbon emissions.
In May 2010 the Hartwell Paper was published by the London School of Economics in collaboration with the University of Oxford.[205]
This paper was written by 14 academics from various disciplines in the
sciences and humanities, and also some policies thinkers, and they
argued that the Kyoto Protocol crashed in late 2009 and "has failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years."[205]
They argued that this failure opened an opportunity to set climate
policy free from Kyoto and the paper advocates a controversial and
piecemeal approach to decarbonization of the global economy.[206][207] The Hartwell paper proposes that "the
organising principle of our effort should be the raising up of human
dignity via three overarching objectives: ensuring energy access for
all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the
essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies
are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come
from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be".[205][206][207]

The only major developed nation which has signed but not ratified the Kyoto protocol is the US (see signatories).
The countries with no official position on Kyoto are mainly African
countries with underdeveloped scientific infrastructure or are oil
producers[citation needed].

Funding

The Global Climate Coalition
was an industry coalition that funded several scientists who expressed
skepticism about global warming. In the year 2000, several members left
the coalition when they became the target of a national divestiture
campaign run by John Passacantando and Phil Radford at Ozone Action. According to the New York Times,
when Ford Motor Company was the first company to leave the coalition,
it was “the latest sign of divisions within heavy industry over how to
respond to global warming.”[208][209]
After that, between December, 1999 and early March, 2000, the GCC was
deserted by Daimler-Chrysler, Texaco, the Southern Company and General
Motors.[210] The Global Climate Coalition closed in 2002, or in their own words, 'deactivated'.[211]
Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from ExxonMobil
totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry
sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco
Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.
Soon, acknowledging that he received this money, stated unequivocally
that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my
scientific research."[212]

On 2 February 2007, The Guardian stated[217][218] that Kenneth Green, a Visiting Scholar with AEI, had sent letters[219]
to scientists in the UK and the U.S., offering US$10,000 plus travel
expenses and other incidental payments in return for essays with the
purpose of "highlight[ing] the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC
process", specifically regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

The Union of Concerned Scientists have produced a report titled 'Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air',[223] that criticizes ExxonMobil for "underwriting the most sophisticated and most successful disinformation campaign since the tobacco industry" and for "funnelling
about $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of ideological and
advocacy organizations that manufacture uncertainty on the issue". In
2006 Exxon said that it was no longer going to fund these groups[224] though that statement has been challenged by Greenpeace.[225]

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a skeptic group, when confronted about the funding of a video they put together ($250,000 for "The Greening of Planet Earth"
from an oil company) stated, "We applaud Western Fuels for their
willingness to publicize a side of the story that we believe to be far
more correct than what at one time was 'generally accepted'. But does
this mean that they fund The Center? Maybe it means that we fund them!"[226]

Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science,
has said that skeptics such as Michaels are lobbyists more than
researchers, and that "I don't think it's unethical any more than most
lobbying is unethical", he said. He said donations to skeptics amounts
to "trying to get a political message across".[227]

Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, said that "[in] the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology [at MIT], lost National Science Foundation
funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over
the past century". Lindzen also suggested that four other scientists
"apparently" lost their funding or positions after questioning the
scientific underpinnings of global warming.[231] Lindzen himself has been the recipient of money from energy interests such as OPEC and the Western Fuels Association, including "$2,500 a day for his consulting services",[232] as well as funding from US federal sources including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and NASA.[233]

Debate over most effective response to warming

In recent years some skeptics have changed their positions regarding global warming. Ronald Bailey, author of Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002), stated in 2005, "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up".[234]
By 2007, he wrote "Details like sea level rise will continue to be
debated by researchers, but if the debate over whether or not humanity
is contributing to global warming wasn't over before, it is now.... as
the new IPCC Summary makes clear, climate change Pollyannaism is no longer looking very tenable".[235]
"There are alternatives to its [the climate-change crusade's]
insistence that the only appropriate policy response is steep and
immediate emissions reductions.... a greenhouse-gas-emissions cap
ultimately would constrain energy production. A sensible climate policy
would emphasize building resilience into our capacity to adapt to
climate changes.... we should consider strategies of adaptation to a
changing climate. A rise in the sea level need not be the end of the
world, as the Dutch have taught us". says Steven F. Hayward of American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank.[236]
Hayward also advocates the use of "orbiting mirrors to rebalance the
amounts of solar radiation different parts of the earth receive"—the space sunshade example of so-called geoengineering for solar radiation management.

In 2001 Richard Lindzen, asked whether it was necessary to try to reduce CO
2 emissions, said that responses needed to be prioritised.
"You can't just say, 'No matter what the cost, and no matter how little
the benefit, we'll do this'. If we truly believe in warming, then we've
already decided we're going to adjust...The reason we adjust to things
far better than Bangladesh is that we're richer. Wouldn't you think it
makes sense to make sure we're as robust and wealthy as possible? And
that the poor of the world are also as robust and wealthy as possible?"[237]

Others argue that if developing nations reach the wealth level of the United States this could greatly increase CO
2 emissions and consumption of fossil fuels. Large
developing nations such as India and China are predicted to be major
emitters of greenhouse gases in the next few decades as their economies
grow.[238][239]

The conservative National Center for Policy Analysis whose "Environmental Task Force" contains a number of climate change skeptics including Sherwood Idso and S. Fred Singer[240]
says, "The growing consensus on climate change policies is that
adaptation will protect present and future generations from
climate-sensitive risks far more than efforts to restrict CO
2 emissions".[241]

The adaptation-only plan is also endorsed by oil companies like
ExxonMobil, "ExxonMobil's plan appears to be to stay the course and try
to adjust when changes occur. The company's plan is one that involves
adaptation, as opposed to leadership",[242] says this Ceres report.[243]

Gregg Easterbrook
characterized himself as having "a long record of opposing alarmism".
In 2006, he stated, "based on the data I'm now switching sides regarding
global warming, from skeptic to convert".[244]

The Bush administration also voiced support for an adaptation-only
policy in the US in 2002. "In a stark shift for the Bush administration,
the United States has sent a climate report [U.S. Climate Action Report 2002]
to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects it
says global warming will inflict on the American environment. In the
report, the administration also for the first time places most of the
blame for recent global warming on human actions—mainly the burning of
fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere". The report however "does not propose any major shift in the
administration's policy on greenhouse gases. Instead it recommends
adapting to inevitable changes instead of making rapid and drastic
reductions in greenhouse gases to limit warming".[245] This position apparently precipitated a similar shift in emphasis at the COP 8 climate talks in New Delhi several months later,[246]
"The shift satisfies the Bush administration, which has fought to avoid
mandatory cuts in emissions for fear it would harm the economy. 'We're
welcoming a focus on more of a balance on adaptation versus mitigation',
said a senior American negotiator in New Delhi. 'You don't have enough
money to do everything'".[247][248]
The White House emphasis on adaptation was not well received however:

Despite conceding that our consumption of fossil fuels is causing
serious damage and despite implying that current policy is inadequate,
the Report fails to take the next step and recommend serious
alternatives. Rather, it suggests that we simply need to accommodate to
the coming changes. For example, reminiscent of former Interior
Secretary Hodel's proposal that the government address the hole in the
ozone layer by encouraging Americans to make better use of sunglasses,
suntan lotion and broad-brimmed hats, the Report suggests that we can
deal with heat-related health impacts by increased use of
air-conditioning ... Far from proposing solutions to the climate change
problem, the Administration has been adopting energy policies that would
actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. Notably, even as the Report
identifies increased air conditioner use as one of the 'solutions' to
climate change impacts, the Department of Energy has decided to roll
back energy efficiency standards for air conditioners.

Some find this shift and attitude disingenuous and indicative of an
inherent bias against prevention (i.e. reducing emissions/consumption)
and for the prolonging of profits to the oil industry at the expense of
the environment. "Now that the dismissal of climate change is no longer
fashionable, the professional deniers are trying another means of
stopping us from taking action. It would be cheaper, they say, to wait
for the impacts of climate change and then adapt to them" says writer
and environmental activist George Monbiot[250]
in an article addressing the supposed economic hazards of addressing
climate change. Others argue that adaptation alone will not be
sufficient.[251] See also Copenhagen Consensus.

Though not emphasized to the same degree as mitigation, adaptation to
a climate certain to change has been included as a necessary component
in the discussion as early as 1992,[252] and has been all along.[253] However it was not to the exclusion, advocated by the skeptics, of preventative mitigation efforts, and therein, say carbon cutting proponents, lies the difference.[254]

Another highly debated potential climate change mitigation strategy is Cap and Trade due to its direct relationship with the economy.

Political pressure on scientists

Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous
pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that
human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate
scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or
personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate
change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of
communications". These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports
on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change
scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of former
oil-industry lobbyist Phil Cooney, who worked for the American Petroleum
Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on
Environmental Quality (he resigned in 2005 before being hired by
ExxonMobil).[255]
In June 2008, a report by NASA's Office of the Inspector General
concluded that NASA staff appointed by the White House had censored and
suppressed scientific data on global warming in order to protect the
Bush administration from controversy close to the 2004 presidential
election.[256]

U.S. officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists,[257] many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.[258][259][260] Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by journalist Chris Mooney in his book The Republican War on Science.

Climate scientist James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote in a widely cited New York Times article[261] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public". NASA
denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a
distinction between personal, and official government, views in
interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several
scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[262]
once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing
policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal
opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.

The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama
recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports
about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed".[263]

Scientists who agree with the consensus view have sometimes expressed
concerns over what they view as sensationalism of global warming by
interest groups and the press. For example Mike Hulme,
director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how
increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic", "chaotic" and
"irreversible", had altered the public discourse around climate change:
"This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change
is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping
in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I
have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners
when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not
satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated
rhetoric".[264]

According to an Associated Press release on 30 January 2007,

Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been
subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of
global warming.

The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279
climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some
of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their
meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question
that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global
warming" or "climate change" from a report".[265]

Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page state that the survey[266] was itself unscientific.[267]

In addition to the pressure from politicians, many prominent
scientists working on climate change issues have reported increasingly
severe harassment from members of the public. The harassment has taken
several forms. The US FBI told ABC News
that it was looking into a spike in threatening emails sent to climate
scientists, while a white supremacist website posted pictures of several
climate scientists with the word "Jew" next to each image. One climate
scientist interviewed by ABC News had a dead animal dumped on his doorstep and now frequently has to travel with bodyguards.[268]
In April 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claimed that leading climate scientist Michael E. Mann had possibly violated state fraud laws, and without providing any evidence of wrongdoing, filed the Attorney General of Virginia's climate science investigation as a civil demand that the University of Virginia
provide a wide range of records broadly related to five research grants
Mann had obtained as an assistant professor at the university from 1999
to 2005. This litigation was widely criticized in the academic
community as politically motivated and likely to have a chilling effect
on future research.[269][270]
The university filed a court petition and the judge dismissed
Cuccinelli's demand on the grounds that no justification had been shown
for the investigation.[271]
Cuccinelli issued a revised subpoena, and appealed the case to the
Virginia Supreme Court which ruled in March 2012 that Cuccinelli did not
have the authority to make these demands. The outcome was hailed as a
victory for academic freedom.[272][273]

Exxon Mobil is also notorious for skewing scientific evidence through
their private funding of scientific organizations. In 2002, Exxon Mobil
contributed $10,000 to The Independent Institute and then $10,000 more
in 2003. In 2003, The Independent Institute release a study that
reported the evidence for imminent global warming found during the
Clinton administration was based on now-dated satellite findings and
wrote off the evidence and findings as a product of "bad science."[274]

This is not the only consortium of skeptics that Exxon Mobil has
supported financially. The George C. Marshall Institute received
$630,000 in funding for climate change research from ExxonMobil between
1998 and 2005. Exxon Mobil also gave $472,000 in funding to The Board of
Academic and Scientific Advisors for the Committee for a Constructive
Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005. Dr. Frederick Seitz, well known as "the god
father of global warming skepticism," served as both Chairman Emeritus
of The George C. Marshall Institute and a board member of the Committee
for a Constructive Tomorrow from 1998 to 2005.[275]

About Me

My formal training is in chemistry. I also read a great deal of physics and biology. In fact I very much enjoy reading in general, mostly science, but also some fiction and history. I also enjoy computer programming and writing. I like hiking and exploring nature. I also enjoy people; not too much in social settings, but one on one; also, people with interesting or "off-beat" minds draw me to them. I also have some interest in Buddhism.

These days I get a lot more information from the internet, primarily through Wiki. Some television, e. g., documentaries, PBS shows like "Nova" and "Nature".

My favorite science writers are Jacob Bronowski ("The Ascent of Man") and Richard Dawkins (his "The Blind Watchmaker" is right up there up Ascent). I also have a favorite writer on Buddhism, Pema Chodron. Favorite films are "Annie Hall" (by Woody Allen), "The Maltese Falcon", "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", "As Good As It Gets", "Conspiracy Theory", Monty Python's "Search For The Holy Grail" and "Life of Brian", and a few others which I can't think about at the moment.

I love a number of classical works (Beethoven's "Pastoral", "Afternoon Of A Fawn" and "Clair De Lune" by Debussey , Pachelbel's "Canon" come to mind. My favorite piece is probably Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue". But I also enjoy a great deal in modern music, including many jazz pieces, folk songs by people like Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, a hodgepodge of pieces by Crosby, Stills, and Nash, Niel Young, and practically everything the Beatles wrote.

My life over the last few years has been in some disarray, but I am finally "getting it together.". As I am very much into the sciences and writing, I would like to move more in this direction. I also enjoy teaching. As for my political leanings, most people would probably describe as basically liberal, though not extremely so. My religious leanings are to the absolutely none: I've alluded to my interest in Buddhism, but again this is not any supernatural or scientifically untested aspect of it but in the way it provides a powerful philosophy and set of practical, day to day methods of dealing with myself and the other human beings.